>From Suvia Judd to 20/20 visionaries and friends:
Summary of County Commissioners' Suggestions to P & Z
Revisit Comp. Plan; incorporate good suggestions of citizens from
December hearing before Co. Comm. (Greene).
So-called one per forty rule is not having effect of protecting farmland
and violates rights. Farmland must be protected even if rights have to
give. However, use non-productive land for houses. Revisit Moscow
area of Impact agreement; prevent leapfrogging near city. 2-5 acre
lots
should be available somewhere (DeWitt).
1/40 rule has perverse result of preventing families with two dwelling
on one parcel from upgrading (e.g. replacing mobile home). This is
unforeseen side effect of 1993 subdivision ordinance and can be fixed by
a revision of the non-conforming use ordinance to treat dwellings
differently from commercial uses (drafted). (Spangler, Asst.
Prosecutor
Whitney, Planner Billington).
Relations between two boards got off to a cordial start. I hope
the County Commissioners accept Whitney's offer to explain the old
and new subdivision ordinances with concrete examples. P & Z asked
the County commissioners for a memo outlining priorities for action
of the Comp. Plan.
Interjection by Whitney that new taking rulings by US. Supreme Court
require watching by counties.
Invitation to Public to Comment (attending: me, Pricilla Salvant,
Barry Ramsey)
Suvia's presentation to ) P & Z:
I asked P & Z to:
1. Pick up on rural residential rezone process, as follows:
(a) Invite Bill Laughlin to present UI survey results,
(b) finish and distribute newspaper insert for two-way
communication with public.
(c) consider committee 1's recommendation for managing rural
residential growth;
(d) arrive at concrete proposals, re-test on public direct
growth;
(e) arrive at concrete proposals on re-test on public
direct staff to
write ordinance.
2. Revisit Comp Plan, and give clearer protection to farmland
in "Rural Area"
(a) Get on an ongoing Plan revision schedule,
(b) establish benchmarks for annually evaluating progress
towards goals.
3. Pick one P & Z project to try a different approach to public
participation, such as community-based planning.
On questioning from Planner Billington I said that advantages of
community-based planning are a.) many heads better than one, and b.)
sense of ownership in outcome. Chair. Carl Mickelsen said he has been
doing a lot of thinking, and believes that the places where maximum
democracy is needed is at the start of the planning process where community
values are decided upon. Skyler Schlueter (Genesee) was afraid that more
participation would mean increased voice for activists like me with one
point of view. Ably refuted by Mickelsen and Hoey Graham.
Result: I am invited to arrange a one hour presentation to
P & Z on enhanced public participation/community-
based planning for the 2nd meeting of March or April